AB 1028 amends Education Code Section 87665 to do two main things: first, it requires that when a community college district terminates a temporary employee, the district must follow the termination procedures contained in the applicable local collective bargaining agreement; second, it states explicitly that part‑time faculty assignments are temporary, contingent on enrollment and funding, and that no part‑time faculty member has reasonable assurance of continued employment at any time.
The change clarifies the interplay between statutory termination authority and local contract procedures, tightens the legal language around adjunct job security, and shifts practical obligations onto district HR and labor relations teams. It also triggers the statutory process for state reimbursement to local agencies if the Commission on State Mandates finds the bill imposes additional costs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Ed. Code §87665 to require districts to carry out any termination of a temporary employee in accordance with the termination procedures in the local collective bargaining agreement. It also adds an explicit statement that part‑time faculty assignments are temporary, contingent on enrollment and funding, and that no part‑time faculty member has reasonable assurance of future employment.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California community college districts and their governing boards, part‑time/temporary faculty (adjuncts), local collective bargaining units and union representatives, and district HR and legal staff who administer terminations and staffing. It also affects district budgets if the Commission finds a state‑mandated cost.
Why It Matters
By grafting CBA procedures onto the statutory termination authority and simultaneously negating any statutory or implied guarantees of reemployment for adjuncts, the bill creates a new point of tension between negotiated protections and administrative flexibility. Labor relations, grievance workflows, and short‑term staffing decisions will be the immediate operational focus for affected parties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1028 revises the limited statutory regime that governs how community college districts may end the employment of temporary staff. Under the prior text, districts had explicit discretion to terminate temporary employees at the end of a day or week, and courts could review only the timing of that decision.
The bill keeps that discretionary structure but requires that, when a termination occurs, the district follow whatever termination procedures appear in the relevant local collective bargaining agreement. That means procedures that previously governed only negotiated disputes now become a statutory step whenever a temporary employee is ended.
The bill also adds a clear statement about part‑time faculty status: assignments are temporary, dependent on enrollment and funding, subject to program changes, and no part‑time faculty member has reasonable assurance of continued employment regardless of status or length of service. That language removes any ambiguity that might have been read into state statute about job continuity for adjuncts and stresses the contingent nature of those assignments.Practically, districts must reconcile two pressures.
On one hand, governing boards retain the ability to terminate temporary staff quickly (end of day or week) to respond to fluctuating enrollment and funding. On the other hand, following local CBA procedures often involves notice, meetings with union representatives, and grievance timelines.
HR offices will need to adapt standard operating procedures to ensure they can both act expeditiously when operationally necessary and document adherence to contract processes to avoid grievances or arbitration.Finally, the bill contains a procedural fiscal clause: if the Commission on State Mandates determines the statute imposes costs on local agencies, reimbursement will follow the Government Code process for mandated costs. That preserves the districts’ route to recover qualifying costs but does not eliminate the near‑term budget pressure of preparing to comply with added procedural duties.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Education Code §87665 to require that any termination of a temporary employee comply with the termination procedures in the local collective bargaining agreement.
It adds an explicit statutory declaration that part‑time faculty assignments are temporary, contingent on enrollment and funding, and that no part‑time faculty member has reasonable assurance of continued employment regardless of status, length of service, or reemployment preference.
Governing boards retain the existing discretion to terminate temporary employees at the end of a day or a week, and judicial review remains limited to questions about the timing of termination.
Section 2 preserves districts’ right to reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds the act imposes state‑mandated local costs, with reimbursement handled under Government Code Part 7 (beginning at Section 17500).
The combination of required compliance with CBA procedures plus an explicit denial of job assurance creates a likely source of grievance and arbitration activity where contract language and the statute appear to conflict.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Board discretion to end temporary employment (timing)
Subsection (a) retains the governing board’s statutory authority to terminate a temporary employee at its discretion at the end of a day or week. The provision continues to limit judicial oversight to disputes about when the termination occurred rather than the substance of the decision. For administrators this preserves fast‑acting operational authority; for unions it leaves open procedural challenges tied to contract compliance rather than the merits of the termination.
Mandatory adherence to local collective bargaining procedures
Subsection (b) requires that when a district terminates a temporary employee it must follow the termination procedures set out in the applicable local collective bargaining agreement. Practically, that can mean applying notice provisions, conducting pre‑termination meetings, following layoff or reassignment protocols, or observing grievance steps before or after the termination. Districts must map local contract timelines onto the statutory practice of end‑of‑day/week terminations, or risk grievances and arbitration costs if they act without observing contract steps.
Express statement that part‑time faculty lack continued employment assurance
Subsection (c) adds a categorical rule: part‑time faculty assignments are temporary, contingent on enrollment and funding, and subject to program changes, and no part‑time faculty member has reasonable assurance of continued employment irrespective of status, length of service, or reemployment preference. That language narrows the interpretive space for claims of implied job guarantees by asserting a statutory baseline of non‑assurance, but it does not by itself invalidate any procedural rights contained in a local contract.
State‑mandated costs and reimbursement procedure
Section 2 instructs that if the Commission on State Mandates determines the act imposes state‑mandated costs on local agencies, districts will be reimbursed under the Government Code framework (Part 7, commencing with Section 17500). This preserves the statutory reimbursement pathway but does not define which costs qualify, meaning districts may incur near‑term compliance expenses while seeking later reimbursement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Community college governing boards: preserve statutory discretion to terminate temporary employees at short notice while receiving clearer statutory direction about how to coordinate with local contracts.
- Local collective bargaining units and unions: gain an explicit statutory hook requiring districts to follow negotiated termination procedures, which can strengthen procedural enforcement and grievance remedies.
- District HR and legal teams: receive clearer statutory text about obligations, allowing them to update termination checklists, track contract procedures, and standardize documentation to defend against grievances.
- Students and programs: indirectly benefit from preserved administrative flexibility to adjust staffing in response to enrollment and funding changes, helping districts align instructional offerings with demand.
Who Bears the Cost
- Part‑time and temporary faculty (adjuncts): face reduced legal expectations of job continuity and greater exposure to short‑notice terminations, which may worsen job stability and income predictability.
- Community college districts: must absorb administrative burden and potential legal costs of applying local CBA procedures to terminations, including increased grievance or arbitration expenses.
- Smaller districts and those with limited HR capacity: bear disproportionate compliance costs because implementing contract procedures quickly requires staff time, training, and possibly outside counsel.
- Local taxpayers and district budgets: could shoulder short‑term costs if the Commission on State Mandates ultimately finds the bill mandates costs and reimbursement is delayed or contested.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing district flexibility to adjust staffing quickly for enrollment and funding reasons against the contractual procedural protections and employment expectations negotiated by local unions: the bill attempts to preserve administrative discretion while imposing adherence to contract procedures, a combination that can be operationally incompatible and legally ambiguous.
The bill folds negotiated procedural protections into the statutory termination regime while simultaneously declaring that adjunct assignments carry no statutory assurance of continued employment. That dual move produces ambiguity where contract language provides reemployment preference or similar protections: a district must follow the procedural steps in the CBA, but the statute’s categorical denial of ‘‘reasonable assurance’’ could be read by boards as limiting substantive contractual entitlements.
The tension is practical as well as legal—following multi‑step contract procedures can be slow, which undermines the statutory convenience of end‑of‑day/week terminations; skipping those steps invites grievances and potential arbitration awards.
Implementation will raise administrative and fiscal questions. Districts will need to document compliance with diverse local contract provisions and may face spikes in grievance filings; those dispute‑resolution costs are real and unevenly distributed across districts.
The Commission on State Mandates mechanism offers a path to reimbursement, but the timing and scope of eligible costs are uncertain, leaving districts to choose between immediate compliance costs and litigation risk. Finally, ‘‘reasonable assurance’’ is not a self‑executing legal standard—its practical meaning will be litigated or resolved in bargaining, and how courts treat a statutory denial of assurance against stronger CBA language remains unsettled.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.